• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Railway byelaw 18: is it fit for purpose when there is no loss to the rail company?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

B

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,870
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
matt_world2004 said:
They should modify the ticketing bylaws so they only can be enforced when there has been an financial loss to the railway or agents of a concession scheme by the actual behaviour
Click to expand...

To be honest I think the ticketing related Byelaws should be abolished and RoRA modified so that it can only be applied in the event of actual fraud i.e. falsification and similar. To me fare evasion should be decriminalised but regulated in the manner of statutory parking penalties issued by Councils with a statutory appeals process to go with it.

TOCs are clearly misusing them on a massive scale. And ScotRail, who basically can't use them anyway due to the difficulty in bringing private prosecutions under Scottish law, seem to cope without.
 
G

gray1404

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2014
Messages
6,595
Location
Merseyside
I really hope that the change in the law that Transport Focus mentioned does happen this year. Does anyone know anything else about this change in the law?
 
Y

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,801
Location
Yorkshire
matt_world2004 said:
Mod note: split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...g-contempt-for-fare-paying-passengers.185168/
They should modify the ticketing bylaws so they only can be enforced when there has been an financial loss to the railway or agents of a concession scheme by the actual behaviour
Click to expand...
Byelaw 18 is a strict liability criminal offence and reads as follows:

https://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/media/1058/railway-byelaws.pdf
18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas
  1. In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.
  2. A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.
  3. No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if:
  • (i) there were no facilities in working orderfor the issue or validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, he began his journey; or
  • (ii) there was a notice at the station where he began his journey permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket; or
  • (iii)an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket.
Click to expand...
I strongly believe this Byelaw is an absolute disgrace and should be abolished. It is not fit for purpose and it is misused by companies such as CrossCountry Trains and Trainsport Investigations Limited (TIL), among others.

If there is evidence that the passenger intended to avoid payment of their fare, they can be prosecuted under the Regulation of Railways Act.

There is therefore no valid justification for a criminal offence where there is no intent to avoid payment of the fare in my opinion.

It's used to extract hundreds of pounds in out of court settlements from customers who are not being accused of attempting to avoid payment of their fare.

It's unjust and wrong.
 
C

cuccir

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
3,659
It's hard to disagree with Yorkie on this one. A speeding fine/penalty fare style system is really the way to deal with most forms of 'day-to-day' fare evasion. The Byelaw's removal could even be replaced with some sort of 'persistent fare evasion' legislation which would permit prosecution for people who have several penalty fares, where perhaps for whatever reason intent would still be difficult to prove.
 
B

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,870
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
cuccir said:
It's hard to disagree with Yorkie on this one. A speeding fine/penalty fare style system is really the way to deal with most forms of 'day-to-day' fare evasion. The Byelaw's removal could even be replaced with some sort of 'persistent fare evasion' legislation which would permit prosecution for people who have several penalty fares, where perhaps for whatever reason intent would still be difficult to prove.
Click to expand...

My view would be to go for a PF similar to TfL's, which is a similar level to parking penalties where the sums involved are similar. For instance I would decriminalise and go with the following:

£80
If paid promptly (say on the spot or within 2 weeks) £40, this option only available for a first "offence" in 12 months
If delayed (say over 1 month) £120

The appropriate walk-up fare that you could have purchased prior to boarding (including discounts) to be paid in addition to this.

If unpaid, to be pursued through the civil courts with bailiffs etc if necessary.

Criminal charges would only be relevant in the case of wilful fraud, e.g. falsification or using someone else's ticket that has a photocard so it's obviously not transferrable. These could be brought under RoRA or a conventional fraud charge as appropriate. These charges would never be brought if it in any way could be a genuine mistake. For instance, if a TOC found that someone had used their husband/wife's season ticket in error (i.e. picked up the wrong one but did hold one themselves) this would just be a PF matter, possibly even refundable on producing the correct ticket and this not having been put through the barrier that day.
 
PaxVobiscum

PaxVobiscum

Established Member
Joined
4 Feb 2012
Messages
2,397
Location
Glasgow
Bletchleyite said:
To be honest I think the ticketing related Byelaws should be abolished and RoRA modified so that it can only be applied in the event of actual fraud i.e. falsification and similar. To me fare evasion should be decriminalised but regulated in the manner of statutory parking penalties issued by Councils with a statutory appeals process to go with it.

TOCs are clearly misusing them on a massive scale. And ScotRail, who basically can't use them anyway due to the difficulty in bringing private prosecutions under Scottish law, seem to cope without.
Click to expand...

Further to ScotRail surviving without, here’s a couple of ScotRail’s webpages on the subject which may cast some light:

https://www.scotrail.co.uk/tickets/buy-before-you-board
(Sorry - too complicated to quote from when posting from a phone because of the expanding submenu structure, but worth a look)

https://www.scotrail.co.uk/about-scotrail/our-rules-travel
Guidelines for our revenue protection policy.

We want to be clear and transparent with every ScotRail customer. We also want to be fair and consistent. Our rules of travel help us achieve this.

This policy helps us reduce the number of people who travel without a ticket, and make our services fair for everyone. The vast majority of our customers do buy the right ticket, which helps us invest in improving services for all.

Buy before you board
We make buying a ticket before you board as easy as possible - at stations, online, over the phone and at self-service ticket machines. At stations where there's no facility to buy a ticket, we make sure that customers can buy the best value fares on the train instead.

Travelling with an invalid ticket
If you travel with an invalid ticket you may have to pay an excess fare or, in certain circumstances, purchase a new ticket to complete your journey. If you travel with an Advance ticket on a service that's different to the one booked, you'll need to buy a full new ticket.

An invalid ticket might mean you've travelled beyond your destination or travelled with an off-peak ticket during peak times.

If things go wrong
We know things don't always go as planned - tickets get lost or stolen, or people miscalculate fares. If you have a problem, please speak to us first, rather than boarding a train and hoping for the best.

We can allow your ticket to be paid for by another person at any National Rail station. In some circumstances we'll give you with an authority to travel, allowing you to complete your journey.

Minors and vulnerable adults
Our staff are trained to assist vulnerable people. We'll help people who are stranded or don't have the means to get home. If you find yourself in this situation please speak to a member of staff.

We also have Help Point telephones at each of our stations where you can speak to someone and get advice.

Ticket errors
If you travel without a valid ticket, we may issue a Travel Irregularity Report.

This means we'll record your full name and address, and date of birth, as well as the time, location and description of the incident. We'll then post you a bill, which will include an admin fee.

National Rail Conditions of Travel
When you purchase a ticket to travel on the National Rail network you enter into agreement with the train companies whose trains you have the right to use. The National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT) set out your rights and any restrictions to those rights.

Copies of the NRCoT are available from ScotRail booking offices or from www.nationalrail.co.uk/nrcot
Click to expand...
 
mallard

mallard

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2009
Messages
1,304
Also note that Byelaw 18 gives you no protection at all if, for example, facilities exist but they do no accept the method of payment you have available (the penalty fares regulations do protect you in that case, but that's of no comfort at a non-PF station) or even if the facilities can't/won't (even ticket offices sometimes refuse to sell certain tickets without reasonable justification) sell you the ticket you wish to buy.

Since the right to exchange another ticket in the latter case has been deleted from the railway's conditions of carriage, there is definitely a need to at the very least update the byelaws accordingly.
 
ForTheLoveOf

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
mallard said:
Also note that Byelaw 18 gives you no protection at all if, for example, facilities exist but they do no accept the method of payment you have available (the penalty fares regulations do protect you in that case, but that's of no comfort at a non-PF station) or even if the facilities can't/won't (even ticket offices sometimes refuse to sell certain tickets without reasonable justification) sell you the ticket you wish to buy.

Since the right to exchange another ticket in the latter case has been deleted from the railway's conditions of carriage, there is definitely a need to at the very least update the byelaws accordingly.
Click to expand...
It's actually the reverse - the reference to ticketing facilities not being available in Byelaw 18(3) is clearly meant as including situations where you hold an accepted method of payment (as shown by NRE) but the ticketing facilities at your boarding station do not cater to it.

Whereas Penalty Fares apply, in theory, even where you board without a ticket because the ticketing facilities do not normally cater to your valid method of payment. It's only when there is an unexpected change of facilities compared to what is normally available that there is an exception - see Regulation 6(4)(b).
 
mallard

mallard

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2009
Messages
1,304
ForTheLoveOf said:
It's actually the reverse - the reference to ticketing facilities not being available in Byelaw 18(3) is clearly meant as including situations where you hold an accepted method of payment (as shown by NRE) but the ticketing facilities at your boarding station do not cater to it.
Click to expand...

Is there an authoritative reference for that? The byelaw itself doesn't mention payment methods at all, unlike the PF regulations that at least have an explicit exception for lack of (usually available) payment acceptance.

Either way, it doesn't address the "TVM/ticket office can't/won't sell the ticket I need" issue. Pretty much all TVMs won't sell certain tickets (often rovers/rangers, PTE products, sometimes even fairly ordinary TOC-only or routed fares) and ticket offices are far from perfect (although usually simply due to lack of training about issuing less common tickets) either. With there being no right to refund/exchange in those situations any more, that's fairly obviously a case where passengers can be regularly scammed.
 
B

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,870
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The other one that's awkward is if you do have the required method of payment but wish not to use it. For instance, you have a debit card but with a balance of £0 and a hefty overdraft fee, but also have your last £20 drawn out in cash and wish to pay using that (or perhaps you've actually got no money left at all but do have a RTV). Have you passed an opportunity to pay or not? Are you required to be hit with that hefty overdraft fee?
 
ForTheLoveOf

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
mallard said:
Is there an authoritative reference for that? The byelaw itself doesn't mention payment methods at all, unlike the PF regulations that at least have an explicit exception for lack of (usually available) payment acceptance.

Either way, it doesn't address the "TVM/ticket office can't/won't sell the ticket I need" issue. Pretty much all TVMs won't sell certain tickets (often rovers/rangers, PTE products, sometimes even fairly ordinary TOC-only or routed fares) and ticket offices are far from perfect (although usually simply due to lack of training about issuing less common tickets) either. With there being no right to refund/exchange in those situations any more, that's fairly obviously a case where passengers can be regularly scammed.
Click to expand...
No, like most of these railway law matters there is an extremely limited amount of recent case law. So it is down to the standard interpretation of words and phrases, and of the intention of the relevant law-maker (the SRA in the case of the Byelaws). It is clear what the intention of the Byelaws is, as, at the time when they were issued card payments for tickets was a rarity. It would be perverse and simply not compliant with established legal principles to suggest that the same words have changed in meaning - from meaning "you must use cash" to "you must use a card".

I also note that even charlatans like TIL haven't tried to suggest an interpretation of Byelaw 18(3) in the way you have suggested. Surely if they thought they could get away with it, they would - but I suspect even they realise they are going to be on the losing end a lot of time if they prosecute people who failed to use facilities that were inaccessible to them.
 
ForTheLoveOf

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
Bletchleyite said:
The other one that's awkward is if you do have the required method of payment but wish not to use it. For instance, you have a debit card but with a balance of £0 and a hefty overdraft fee, but also have your last £20 drawn out in cash and wish to pay using that (or perhaps you've actually got no money left at all but do have a RTV). Have you passed an opportunity to pay or not? Are you required to be hit with that hefty overdraft fee?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure there's much value into going into such hypotheticals. If you have a card but for whatever reasondon't want to use it then simply don't bring it up.
 
B

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,870
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
ForTheLoveOf said:
I'm not sure there's much value into going into such hypotheticals. If you have a card but for whatever reasondon't want to use it then simply don't bring it up.
Click to expand...

The law doesn't really work like that, though. If the law says you have to buy at the first opportunity, if you have a card which will not decline that's an opportunity. And we're talking about prosecutions here, not whether an RPI believes you've got a card or not.

I think this will come up at some point in the not too distant future as people move more and more to card payments. London buses already do not accept cash - if you have no card you're not getting on. I can see the railway moving this way within 10 years. The acceptance of cash has huge cost, both in financial terms and in terms of staff personal safety.
 
Llanigraham

Llanigraham

On Moderation
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,103
Location
Powys
You can all stamp your feet, have a paddy, or even throw the toys out of the pram as much as you like, but unless you can get Parliamentary time to discuss this, which will mean getting several MP's on-side, and probably the train operators, in the current political world I cannot see any changes happening very quickly, or even ever.
 
ForTheLoveOf

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
Bletchleyite said:
The law doesn't really work like that, though. If the law says you have to buy at the first opportunity, if you have a card which will not decline that's an opportunity. And we're talking about prosecutions here, not whether an RPI believes you've got a card or not.

I think this will come up at some point in the not too distant future as people move more and more to card payments. London buses already do not accept cash - if you have no card you're not getting on. I can see the railway moving this way within 10 years. The acceptance of cash has huge cost, both in financial terms and in terms of staff personal safety.
Click to expand...
The only recent example we have of a notable method of payment no longer being accepted on the railway is for cheques. Personal cheques aren't taken at all any more and I believe were phased out of the railway in 2011. This article discusses the demise of cash but it is clear that with some 3.5m people still only using cash, it will be a very long time before something as variable as the train stops taking cash. It's not the same as the London buses where there is one, flat fare for all journeys at all times.
 
mallard

mallard

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2009
Messages
1,304
Bletchleyite said:
I can see the railway moving this way within 10 years.
Click to expand...

As it stands, if the railway allow people to board without first buying a ticket in any case whatsoever, they have to accept cash (although not necessarily immediately; they could issue some form of "invoice" for later payment) as payment.

There is also the problem that minors cannot get credit cards and often cannot even get widely accepted debit cards. It works reasonably well in London where minors have extensive free travel arrangements and Oyster PAYG can be topped up with cash at numerous locations. Since there is no plan to introduce anything comparable to Oyster (no, the pitiful TOC-specific smartcard schemes that usually lack a PAYG element are not even close to comparable) nationwide, dropping cash acceptance is going to be significantly more difficult.
 
B

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,870
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
mallard said:
As it stands, if the railway allow people to board without first buying a ticket in any case whatsoever, they have to accept cash (although not necessarily immediately; they could issue some form of "invoice" for later payment) as payment.
Click to expand...

That is because a debt exists under legal tender rules, I guess? I don't see any reason they could not only offer a penalty fare in this case, though, with the "discount" for pre-purchasing being the regular fare.
 
ForTheLoveOf

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
Bletchleyite said:
That is because a debt exists under legal tender rules, I guess? I don't see any reason they could not only offer a penalty fare in this case, though, with the "discount" for pre-purchasing being the regular fare.
Click to expand...
It would depend on what kind of debt had arisen. Plus tender is something that is massively misunderstood - it simply means that you have a defence to a civil claim if you pay into the Court the amount in question. It is only ever the Court that is under an obligation to take legal tender.
 
mallard

mallard

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2009
Messages
1,304
Bletchleyite said:
I don't see any reason they could not only offer a penalty fare in this case, though, with the "discount" for pre-purchasing being the regular fare.
Click to expand...

Rather unfair to charge penalties to people have done nothing "wrong" except boarding at small rural halts without a TVM... Especially since those places tend to coincide with areas with poor mobile signals, making purchasing app tickets difficult. Still, sounds like typical TOC behaviour to me.

ForTheLoveOf said:
It would depend on what kind of debt had arisen. Plus tender is something that is massively misunderstood - it simply means that you have a defence to a civil claim if you pay into the Court the amount in question. It is only ever the Court that is under an obligation to take legal tender.
Click to expand...

If you board a train expecting to pay on-board (especially at small halts where there is no alternative), then it's clear that a debt has been incurred once travel begins. While, yes, it's technically only once it comes to court that has tender has to be accepted, it's hardly going to be cost-effective for the TOC to take everyone who wants to pay with cash to court!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top